New AC System: Highlighting the problems

[Jher]

<DIV>Ok, the new AC system has gone in, so it now shows your total AC including benefits from dodging, parrying, deflection, etc etc.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This has had the effect of allowing groups to make an informed decision on who to tank, based on more than simply armour, which is definitely a good thing. It has however also highlighted a few possible problems.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>First thing I noticed was that it really highlights the difference between Soldiers Stance and Reckless Stance. The former provides a pretty large bonus to your total AC, with Reckless Stance lagging quite considerably behind, for only a small reduction in attack penalty. This we already knew however, so its just a case of now having extra numbers to prove it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Second thing I noticed... well. See for yourself. Go find a well equipped scout of similar level and check out their AC number.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I have around 4400 AC solo at level 34. Probably not the best, but I'm certainly not in -terrible- equipment for my level. A fellow guildie scout (ranger) has slightly more total AC than me at 2 levels higher (4408 - again, only solo).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now I certainly won't argue that scouts are too powerful, as I know what he can tank, vs what I can tank (yes, scouts *can* tank even con/yellow groups), I know that when I take a big hit from a boss, it hurts me less - though the scout can get lucky and dodge a lot of blows, eventually he'll drop fast in a hard fight. However, if the figures are correct, and are showing the number which decides the total damage you would receive over a long period, then it either closes the alleged gap between scout and fighter tankability, or armour is not doing what it should.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anyway, just a first 'heads up' post, to get people thinking about this, and see what other opinions are.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Discuss <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Tarindel]

<blockquote><hr>Jherad wrote:<DIV>Ok, the new AC system has gone in, so it now shows your total AC including benefits from dodging, parrying, deflection, etc etc.</DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>This has had the effect of allowing groups to make an informed decision on who to tank, based on more than simply armour, which is definitely a good thing. It has however also highlighted a few possible problems.</DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>First thing I noticed was that it really highlights the difference between Soldiers Stance and Reckless Stance. The former provides a pretty large bonus to your total AC, with Reckless Stance lagging quite considerably behind, for only a small reduction in attack penalty. This we already knew however, so its just a case of now having extra numbers to prove it.</DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>Second thing I noticed... well. See for yourself. Go find a well equipped scout of similar level and check out their AC number.</DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>I have around 4400 AC solo at level 34. Probably not the best, but I'm certainly not in -terrible- equipment for my level. A fellow guildie scout (ranger) has slightly more total AC than me at 2 levels higher (4408 - again, only solo).</DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>Now I certainly won't argue that scouts are too powerful, as I know what he can tank, vs what I can tank (yes, scouts *can* tank even con/yellow groups), I know that when I take a big hit from a boss, it hurts me less - though the scout can get lucky and dodge a lot of blows, eventually he'll drop fast in a hard fight. However, if the figures are correct, and are showing the number which decides the total damage you would receive over a long period, then it either closes the alleged gap between scout and fighter tankability, or armour is not doing what it should.</DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>Anyway, just a first 'heads up' post, to get people thinking about this, and see what other opinions are.</DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>Discuss <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV> </DIV><hr></blockquote>I'm not sure scouts having the same AC as us is anything to worry about. If I'm not mistaken, AC governs how often you're going to get hit, not how much you're going to mitigate -- right? Because if so, scouts will get hit the same amount as us, but we'll get mitigation from heavy armor whereas they will only get mitigation from medium armor...If I'm wrong, then let me know because I hate being inaccurate. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Tyr'f]

<DIV>the new AC figuere is supposed to incorporate EVERYTHING mitigation, evasion, EVERYTHING so scouts having the same is a VERY BAD THING <img src="/smilies/1cfd6e2a9a2c0cf8e74b49b35e2e46c7.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>since they have the same damage avoidance as us tho + ALOT of utility skills we should be able to outdamage them hands down and they shouldn't be able to [FaarNerfed!] about it</DIV>

[Hoe]

The new number is NOT AC, it's your total Defense, this is the sum of your AC, your dodge, your block, your parry, and any other skills that help with mitigation. Calling it AC is not right, it's the end all be all number to look at when you are talking about taking hits. I would say a ranger with a higher defense number is a bit unbalanced.

[Jher]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Hoeuk wrote:<BR>The new number is NOT AC, it's your total Defense, this is the sum of your AC, your dodge, your block, your parry, and any other skills that help with mitigation. Calling it AC is not right, it's the end all be all number to look at when you are talking about taking hits. I would say a ranger with a higher defense number is a bit unbalanced.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>*nods*</P> <P>Only reason I called it AC, is because thats what it is (still) called in your Persona window <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P> </P>

[-Aonein-]

<DIV>They did the same thing with AC in EQ1. There was certain abilitys that added to the number of AC even though they didnt acually increase mitigation. There doing the same thing here.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Taemek Frozenberg 36th Berserker<BR>16th Outfitter<BR>Co-Leader of Justice Bringers<BR>Everfrost Server<BR><BR>Enlightened Aonein Amillion ( retired )<BR>70th Stone Fist of The Celestial Fist<BR>Five Rings on Luclin Server<BR><BR>"We are the two halves of the Flowing Circle, the light and the dark. If either grows too weak or too strong, the circle collapses on itself. Here, I will draw a Flowing Circle in the sand for you. Meditate upon the dual nature of our order and ourselves as you practice Kitten Swims Upstream. Perhaps, if you learn something from your meditations, Brother Tenshin will teach the kitten to become a tiger."</DIV>

[Druug]

<DIV>When both unbuffed and dual wielding, my Bard/Scout friend (29) has more AC than my Berserker (31).  She is in T3 armour with slightly inferior jewelry (full AQ gear) compared to my full set of Pristine Feyiron Vanguard.  Also note she is 2 levels below me.  If this new AC calculation is right then why am I tanking again? <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

[-Aonein-]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Druugyn wrote:<BR> <DIV>When both unbuffed and dual wielding, my Bard/Scout friend (29) has more AC than my Berserker (31).  She is in T3 armour with slightly inferior jewelry (full AQ gear) compared to my full set of Pristine Feyiron Vanguard.  Also note she is 2 levels below me.  If this new AC calculation is right then why am I tanking again? <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>Because the mitigation value of the AC number is higher then what your Bard friends will be even though the AC numbers appear the same, i can sense there will be a extenisve wrtie up on how this works cause there is going to be a mass of confused angry people thinking one thing, " he has more AC then me so im a inferior tank " which is not the way it works.</P> <P>Only reason a Bard / Assassian / Monk will have AC same as ours is because his agility, dodge, block, parry make the number LOOK big. There Mitiagtion side of the AC value doesnt change, that stays the same.</P> <P>A SoE correspondent will post in the next few days on how it works, im sure.</P> <P>Taemek Frozenberg 36th Berserker<BR>16th Outfitter<BR>Co-Leader of Justice Bringers<BR>Everfrost Server<BR><BR>Enlightened Aonein Amillion ( retired )<BR>70th Stone Fist of The Celestial Fist<BR>Five Rings on Luclin Server<BR><BR>"We are the two halves of the Flowing Circle, the light and the dark. If either grows too weak or too strong, the circle collapses on itself. Here, I will draw a Flowing Circle in the sand for you. Meditate upon the dual nature of our order and ourselves as you practice Kitten Swims Upstream. Perhaps, if you learn something from your meditations, Brother Tenshin will teach the kitten to become a tiger."</P>

[Druug]

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> -Aonein- wrote:<BR><BR> <P>Because the mitigation value of the AC number is higher then what your Bard friends will be even though the AC numbers appear the same, i can sense there will be a extenisve wrtie up on how this works cause there is going to be a mass of confused angry people thinking one thing, " he has more AC then me so im a inferior tank " which is not the way it works.</P> <P>Only reason a Bard / Assassian / Monk will have AC same as ours is because his agility, dodge, block, parry make the number LOOK big. There Mitiagtion side of the AC value doesnt change, that stays the same. <HR> </P></BLOCKQUOTE>I've read this on other threads as well but even with an explanation it doesn't greatly reduce the confusion.  What does the number really represent then?  Sure, a heavy class tank will hopefully still have greater mitigation but mitigation is only a small part of a the "tank" equation.  Refer to previous discussions on frequency of specials landing on mitigation versus dodge/parry classes for a good example.<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I would've thought the new AC value would be representative of how good anyone could tank, or another way to look at it, how well someone can avoid melee damage in general.  This would make sense.  In such a scenario you'd expect a "tank" profession to have a higher AC still.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If the new AC is merely cosmetic then it's just made a game that's largely based on statistics worse.  What if Health or character statistics were merely cosmetic as well?  You have 3000 Health?  Well, doesn't matter because it's merely cosmetic.  Doesn't make sense.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Jher]

<P>Yep, I think the issue is simply with the 'numbers' rather than the actual mechanics really. After all, the developers have stated that this change was simply to the way AC is displayed, not how incoming damage is decided - and I don't think any of us actually believe that scouts tank better <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P> </P> <P>However this does raise the question of how useful this change actually was - after all, the premise was to raise awareness of different styles of tanking, by lumping mitigation, dodging, deflection, parrying etc into one big melting pot, then calling it AC. The fact that scouts are right up there with tanks in the AC figure however proves that this number is meaningless - or if NOT meaningless, that something is very wrong.</P> <P>Edit: Typo</P><p>Message Edited by Jherad on <span class=date_text>02-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:22 PM</span>

[NoSympathy_FU]

I dont want to sound like a 'Statistic Nerd' and sure dont want to see the game going down to numbers only but perhaps instead of throwing all types of 'defense' it would have been better to broke it down in different sections (mitigation, dodge factor, block factor etc.). Could have helped to avoid the confusion that seems to exist at the moment. I am looking forward for the dev statement about how it is working, may help to answer some questions about the mechanics.

[ArivenGemini]

<blockquote><hr>NoSympathy_FUTA wrote:I dont want to sound like a 'Statistic Nerd' and sure dont want to see the game going down to numbers only but perhaps instead of throwing all types of 'defense' it would have been better to broke it down in different sections (mitigation, dodge factor, block factor etc.). Could have helped to avoid the confusion that seems to exist at the moment. yeah but then we have to trust that the person inviting us to the group can do simple math and add stuff up... and thats not a risk I want to take.. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Tarindel]

<blockquote><hr>Ariven wrote:<blockquote><hr>NoSympathy_FUTA wrote:I dont want to sound like a 'Statistic Nerd' and sure dont want to see the game going down to numbers only but perhaps instead of throwing all types of 'defense' it would have been better to broke it down in different sections (mitigation, dodge factor, block factor etc.). Could have helped to avoid the confusion that seems to exist at the moment. yeah but then we have to trust that the person inviting us to the group can do simple math and add stuff up... and thats not a risk I want to take.. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><hr></blockquote>Wouldn't be hard to autocalculate a total, since they're doing that anyway. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[NoSympathy_FU]

<blockquote><hr>Tarindel wrote:<blockquote><hr>Ariven wrote:<blockquote><hr>NoSympathy_FUTA wrote:I dont want to sound like a 'Statistic Nerd' and sure dont want to see the game going down to numbers only but perhaps instead of throwing all types of 'defense' it would have been better to broke it down in different sections (mitigation, dodge factor, block factor etc.). Could have helped to avoid the confusion that seems to exist at the moment. yeah but then we have to trust that the person inviting us to the group can do simple math and add stuff up... and thats not a risk I want to take.. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><hr></blockquote>Wouldn't be hard to autocalculate a total, since they're doing that anyway. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><hr></blockquote>Yes sorry if I wasent making myself clear, but all the stats should be availible to the player and the total (as right now) can be looked by group memebers. Or something along those lines.

[-Aonein-]

<DIV>If you get invited to a group to DPS while a scout class tanks cause his 'numbers' are higher, its time to leave the group before u all get huge debt.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In a way they already have the numbers for block, parry, dodge, but only the player of the character himself gets to see this, mitigation has never acually been able to be seen, number wise it hasnt anyways, its always been a 'roll of the dice' system in conjuction with AC / class type.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Taemek Frozenberg 36th Berserker<BR>16th Outfitter<BR>Co-Leader of Justice Bringers<BR>Everfrost Server<BR><BR>Enlightened Aonein Amillion ( retired )<BR>70th Stone Fist of The Celestial Fist<BR>Five Rings on Luclin Server</DIV>

[Mie]

<DIV>If new "AC" number include parry etc etc , why "War Chart" buff doesn't increase the "AC" at all ?</DIV>

[Degas]

They have made the reported number basically useless. The way I think about it under the current system is as if I was looking strictly at a player's AGI rating. Since we know they have nerfed the hell out of AGI, it makes that reported number useless in judging a player's mitigation.We're back to just judging who should tank based on what kind of armor they wear and what their class is...which still works. The only problem there is that you don't have a quick way to see if a tank has good equipment. So there is no easy way to determine which of 2 Heavy-Armor-wearing players should be out front. You now have to either test each of them in a fight, or extensively "inspect" their equipped inventory.One thing that CAN be said, however, is that anyone not wearing Heavy Armor has just been shut out of the tanking business <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />